HotWingConspiracy:It added that the payments would "motivate a strong management team during the integration process" to make the merger a success.

These same people will tell you that increasing pay for the rank and file will make them lazy.

The only possible response a rational person could provide to someone saying what you have quoted with a straight face would be a swift kick in the nuts. Once the response has been provided you let them roll around on the floor for a while and consider where that interaction may have gone wrong.

"We wanna cut this guy loose, how much should we pay him?""Iunno. Hey, Bob, how much did we say the CEO of Home Depot was worth a few years back? 250M? Hmmm. He took some shiat for that, and the economy'shiat the skids since then. How about $20M?""Cool. Let's go to Hooters for lunch; send the e-mail from the table and the client pays."

// really, how much grunt work does it take?// far more than it should, evidently// and those "consultants" didn't think about shareholders?// that's probably a million or few wasted that NO ONE will recover

Meanwhile AA has given me such crappy insurance that I had to pay almost entirely out of pocket for a surgery I had recently. Not to mention spending a lot of effort to ensure my department "gets to keep our individual voice" (ie. keep the unions out). To be fair, my department VOTED to keep the union out, but there sure was an insane amount of effort by the higher ups to convince everyone to vote no that could have been devoted to say, i don't know, improving customer service maybe?

Do you know how much work it is to bring a company to bankruptcy? Why these poor CEOs have to make multiple trips in their private jets to their fabulous Bermudan villas, attend board meetings, keep up with the latest trends in biz-speak, make bad decisions that they can later blame on a VP, write occasional nonsensical memos to staff, recommend trendy business books to senior management, attend three hour lunches, and make sure their assistant answers their email. It's brutal work, but these unsung heroes do it every day.

ZAZ:Bankruptcy court is not bound by prior negotiations, contracts, solemn vows, or even the opinion of pay consultants.

Bingo.

There's a reason I have tenpoundsofcheese farkied as "ten pounds of derp". He's either a very short-bus special Farker incapable of operating outside a Fox-Limbaugh field, or performing some truly wonderful performance art. Unfortunately Poe's Law prevents me from knowing which one, a sort of internet Heisenberg's Uncertainty effect.

You know he asked for 21 million but we negotiated him down. It took weeks of meetings with lawyers and accountants and fiduciary experts but we finally arrived at an amount we could all be comfortable with.

So actually, we saved the company a million dollars? Where's our big thank you from the customer? A million bucks is a lot of money. But no. All we hear is "You gave some guy 20 million to leave" and "What's this $25 feet on the carpet surcharge?"

We're scrapping the plan for the new GNB headquarters. This recession is killing us. We're cutting anything non-essential. And I have a lot of tough choices to make at the bi-quarterly retreat in Saint Croix.

Aside from allowing yourself to feel morally superior to someone who has been much more successful than you, what's the point of being outraged about the fiscal operations of a corporation? No one is forcing you to use the product so if you don't like the company, don't use them. Use of technological advancements is not a right or a necessity. If the company wants to give this guy 20 million then I don't have a problem with it. He may have done a shiatty job as far as we know but imagine how much he'd get if he had done a better job. If he had produced a product exactly to your liking would 20 million be justified in your eyes? The fact of it is it doesn't need to be justified, it's their money, they can do with it as they please, and they will.

DubtodaIll:Aside from allowing yourself to feel morally superior to someone who has been much more successful than you, what's the point of being outraged about the fiscal operations of a corporation? No one is forcing you to use the product so if you don't like the company, don't use them. Use of technological advancements is not a right or a necessity. If the company wants to give this guy 20 million then I don't have a problem with it. He may have done a shiatty job as far as we know but imagine how much he'd get if he had done a better job. If he had produced a product exactly to your liking would 20 million be justified in your eyes? The fact of it is it doesn't need to be justified, it's their money, they can do with it as they please, and they will.

well, since it's only one company and one severance and it has never happened to any other corporation ever, and the overall budget of that company certainly is not effected in such things as support personnel or safety, and the costs associated with their product has zero effect on the pricing of their competitors, I guess we 'll just let it go. But I'm still watching, as I have been for many, many years, just in case a major corporation makes an outrageous financial decision, even just once.

Nana's Vibrator:DubtodaIll: Aside from allowing yourself to feel morally superior to someone who has been much more successful than you, what's the point of being outraged about the fiscal operations of a corporation? No one is forcing you to use the product so if you don't like the company, don't use them. Use of technological advancements is not a right or a necessity. If the company wants to give this guy 20 million then I don't have a problem with it. He may have done a shiatty job as far as we know but imagine how much he'd get if he had done a better job. If he had produced a product exactly to your liking would 20 million be justified in your eyes? The fact of it is it doesn't need to be justified, it's their money, they can do with it as they please, and they will.

well, since it's only one company and one severance and it has never happened to any other corporation ever, and the overall budget of that company certainly is not effected in such things as support personnel or safety, and the costs associated with their product has zero effect on the pricing of their competitors, I guess we 'll just let it go. But I'm still watching, as I have been for many, many years, just in case a major corporation makes an outrageous financial decision, even just once.

Well at least you're not wasting energy looking for things to be upset about instead of doing things that could put you in a situation where the actions of others have a smaller effect on your emotional well being.

DubtodaIll:Aside from allowing yourself to feel morally superior to someone who has been much more successful than you, what's the point of being outraged about the fiscal operations of a corporation? No one is forcing you to use the product so if you don't like the company, don't use them. Use of technological advancements is not a right or a necessity. If the company wants to give this guy 20 million then I don't have a problem with it. He may have done a shiatty job as far as we know but imagine how much he'd get if he had done a better job. If he had produced a product exactly to your liking would 20 million be justified in your eyes? The fact of it is it doesn't need to be justified, it's their money, they can do with it as they please, and they will.

Because it's a public company and people have 401k's and other retirement plans invested in this business. Their success or failure is far reaching. Some people's livelihoods depend on air travel. City's require tourists and businessmen to be able to fly in. Interest rates are affected. Local vendors. Tourist stops.

No one is forcing you to fly, that is true. But a company that large has an affect on so many other things that may not seem related at first. Like in those little strip mall places, you have the grocery store, then a bunch of little shops like chinese food, pizza, nail salon, dollar store. Those little guys better worry how the grocery store operates, because they live off the coat tails of that store. If the grocery store closes, then the little guys will lose traffic and also g out of business. So, that is why we should give a shiat about the fiscal operation of a corporation.

stonicus:DubtodaIll: Aside from allowing yourself to feel morally superior to someone who has been much more successful than you, what's the point of being outraged about the fiscal operations of a corporation? No one is forcing you to use the product so if you don't like the company, don't use them. Use of technological advancements is not a right or a necessity. If the company wants to give this guy 20 million then I don't have a problem with it. He may have done a shiatty job as far as we know but imagine how much he'd get if he had done a better job. If he had produced a product exactly to your liking would 20 million be justified in your eyes? The fact of it is it doesn't need to be justified, it's their money, they can do with it as they please, and they will.

Because it's a public company and people have 401k's and other retirement plans invested in this business. Their success or failure is far reaching. Some people's livelihoods depend on air travel. City's require tourists and businessmen to be able to fly in. Interest rates are affected. Local vendors. Tourist stops.

No one is forcing you to fly, that is true. But a company that large has an affect on so many other things that may not seem related at first. Like in those little strip mall places, you have the grocery store, then a bunch of little shops like chinese food, pizza, nail salon, dollar store. Those little guys better worry how the grocery store operates, because they live off the coat tails of that store. If the grocery store closes, then the little guys will lose traffic and also g out of business. So, that is why we should give a shiat about the fiscal operation of a corporation.

You mean to tell me business owners actually have to work hard to beat the competition and survive in a dynamic economy and that there are a bunch of assholes out there trying to keep all the money for themselves and don't give a damn about your success or the negative macro-consequences of their actions? That's poppy-cock!

April Bond:He needs that $20 million to replace the cracked leather seats in his personal Learjet. How is he going to fly his friends to the Superbowl when the leather seats in it are cracked?

See, that the problem right there. If he had been paid a reasonable amount for the rare expertise and talent only a CEO of major companies posses, he would have had the non-cracking whale penis foreskin leather. See what happens when you scrimp on the salary of those that are better than all others?

Well at least you're not wasting energy looking for things to be upset about instead of doing things that could put you in a situation where the actions of others have a smaller effect on your emotional well being.

I'm reading this but all I'm hearing is "congratulations on never spending time in the Politics tab, good sir"

DubtodaIll:Aside from allowing yourself to feel morally superior to someone who has been much more successful than you, what's the point of being outraged about the fiscal operations of a corporation? No one is forcing you to use the product so if you don't like the company, don't use them. Use of technological advancements is not a right or a necessity. If the company wants to give this guy 20 million then I don't have a problem with it. He may have done a shiatty job as far as we know but imagine how much he'd get if he had done a better job. If he had produced a product exactly to your liking would 20 million be justified in your eyes? The fact of it is it doesn't need to be justified, it's their money, they can do with it as they please, and they will.

This is a heavily, heavily regulated industry, which means the free market isn't at play. I can't go start m00 Airlines with a 707 I keep in a barn. Is this a good idea? Absolutely. But if the government prevents competition to a service that I more-or-less have no alternative to using, then it is my business how the money is spent.

DubtodaIll:stonicus: DubtodaIll: Aside from allowing yourself to feel morally superior to someone who has been much more successful than you, what's the point of being outraged about the fiscal operations of a corporation? No one is forcing you to use the product so if you don't like the company, don't use them. Use of technological advancements is not a right or a necessity. If the company wants to give this guy 20 million then I don't have a problem with it. He may have done a shiatty job as far as we know but imagine how much he'd get if he had done a better job. If he had produced a product exactly to your liking would 20 million be justified in your eyes? The fact of it is it doesn't need to be justified, it's their money, they can do with it as they please, and they will.

Because it's a public company and people have 401k's and other retirement plans invested in this business. Their success or failure is far reaching. Some people's livelihoods depend on air travel. City's require tourists and businessmen to be able to fly in. Interest rates are affected. Local vendors. Tourist stops.

No one is forcing you to fly, that is true. But a company that large has an affect on so many other things that may not seem related at first. Like in those little strip mall places, you have the grocery store, then a bunch of little shops like chinese food, pizza, nail salon, dollar store. Those little guys better worry how the grocery store operates, because they live off the coat tails of that store. If the grocery store closes, then the little guys will lose traffic and also g out of business. So, that is why we should give a shiat about the fiscal operation of a corporation.

You mean to tell me business owners actually have to work hard to beat the competition and survive in a dynamic economy and that there are a bunch of assholes out there trying to keep all the money for themselves and don't give a damn about your success or the negative macro-consequences of their ...

Your manner of dialogue is very cumbersome and awkward. But you asked why it's our business. I explained why. It's not as complicated as you are trying to make it.

NightOwl2255:What's wrong with you looters? Ayn Rand would be ashamed of you. He's a CEO. He's a Rock Star. By the very definition of CEO in American business he deserves every penny he can get. Who do you hanger-ons think built this nation. When Atlas asked what he should do, shrug, I said.

Actually, if you have read any of Ayn Rand's works, you would know that Objectivism does not support the irrational greed rampant in our corporate culture. But then again, if any of the nutzo libertarians out there who spout off about going Galt could actually read, they would know that it does not support their craziness either.

wingnut396:If he had been paid a reasonable amount for the rare expertise and talent only a CEO of major companies posses, he would have had the non-cracking whale penis foreskin leather.

In fairness, there are a lot of knockoffs on the market. To the untrained eye and touch, it's very hard to differentiate between the high quality blue whale foreskin leather, and a cheap replacement such as sloth taint leather, which South American crime orgs flooded into the marketplace during the late 90's.

Well at least you're not wasting energy looking for things to be upset about instead of doing things that could put you in a situation where the actions of others have a smaller effect on your emotional well being.

I'm reading this but all I'm hearing is "congratulations on never spending time in the Politics tab, good sir"

I don't think I've ever posted over there, from what I've read it's all bluster an no bollocks. It's difficult to read sophists and take them at all seriously.

DubtodaIll: what's the point of being outraged about the fiscal operations of a corporation?l.

It's a public corporation. The shareholder's money is being used for the private benefit of a few board members and top executives who loot the company.

It's a bankrupt corporation. It's assets belong to the the creditors. Not the for the private benefit of a few board members and top executives who loot the company.

It's a merging corporation. By reducing the airline industry to a few very large players, it allows a near-monopoly in many markets, meaning it can extract unwarranted high fares from a captive audience.

It's close enough to correct that you look like an ass trying to argue against it

The term executory contract assumes a specialized meaning in some areas of law. In bankruptcy law, an executory contract is a contract in which continuing obligations exist on both sides of the contract. In this context, a trustee may assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease subject to court approval. [1] See e.g. 11 U.S.C. § 365.

And the contract was accepted when the merger was closed.Now they want to re-negotiate it.

Killer Cars:wingnut396: If he had been paid a reasonable amount for the rare expertise and talent only a CEO of major companies posses, he would have had the non-cracking whale penis foreskin leather.

In fairness, there are a lot of knockoffs on the market. To the untrained eye and touch, it's very hard to differentiate between the high quality blue whale foreskin leather, and a cheap replacement such as sloth taint leather, which South American crime orgs flooded into the marketplace during the late 90's.

There are subtle differences between the foreskin and taint grains; for a nominal fee ($1000/Hr), my firm will positively identify the source for discerning clients, test quality of the treatment, and recommend further care and maintenance action plans.

sdd2000:April Bond: He needs that $20 million to replace the cracked leather seats in his personal Learjet. How is he going to fly his friends to the Superbowl when the leather seats in it are cracked?

At that persons level it would not be a Lear, more likely a Gulfstream, Lears are for the barely making it crowd

It's close enough to correct that you look like an ass trying to argue against it

The term executory contract assumes a specialized meaning in some areas of law. In bankruptcy law, an executory contract is a contract in which continuing obligations exist on both sides of the contract. In this context, a trustee may assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease subject to court approval. [1] See e.g. 11 U.S.C. § 365.

And the contract was accepted when the merger was closed.Now they want to re-negotiate it.

What was accepted or rejected during the merger is irrelevant to whether or not the trustee can, or does NULL the contract during the bankruptcy.